What constitutes "exclusion"? If Carson declines to step up and face the protests and criticisms, does he deprive his supporters of the "exclusion" taunt? Obviously, Instapundit doesn't think so.

Carson cites "the national media" attention to his "statements as to [his] belief in traditional marriage" and professes a belief that it is "in the best interests of the students" for him "to voluntarily withdraw," since his "presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day." Graduation should be about the students, he says and then gets in his shot, which contains a well-cloaked accusation of exclusion:

"Someday in the future, it is my hope and prayer that the emphasis on political correctness will decrease and we will start emphasizing rational discussion of differences so we can actually resolve problems and chart a course that is inclusive of everyone."

Ironically, it was the lack of inclusiveness on the part of Carson that made Carson seem like an inappropriate graduation speaker. Graduation really does need to be a politically correct occasion, and Carson's withdrawal cites exactly that need. Did Johns Hopkins exclude him? Some people at Johns Hopkins made him feel excluded — excluded by the very nature of graduation. Even as he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, he believes that graduation is about the students' positive feelings. Is Carson hoping that in the future, graduation ceremonies will include speakers that challenge the students' comfortable set of beliefs?

If Dr. Carson showed up at Johns Hopkins commencement and started talking about his support for normal marriage, it would be just as inappropriate as if some other speaker went there and started talking about "same-sex" marriage. But if his intent and delivery was to talk about the nature of the experience that the students had gone through, his own experiences in life and how these things might guide them in the future, then no "political correctness" would be necessary.

"Political correctness" says that "institutional racism" prevents people of Dr. Carson's race from ever achieving the position in life that he has, so I'd say that "political correctness" has no place at commencement. Perhaps that's why he can't speak there without being disruptive - his very existence is politically incorrect.

Do we have evidence that Carson was going to talk about gay marriage? If so, I would agree that that is inappropriate for commencement. Absent that, why is his view on that particular issue disqualifying?

I read that as a headline. You've heard of them, haven't you, Althouse? Maybe not. Let me explain the concept to you. It's to get your attention. It's written like that to get you to read the article. Newspapers do it all the time.

Original Mike said... Do we have evidence that Carson was going to talk about gay marriage? If so, I would agree that that is inappropriate for commencement. Absent that, why is his view on that particular issue disqualifying?

We know (a) he's publicly non-leftist and (b) student activists believe that a sufficient reason to create a disruption. So we've rewarded those who will act inappropriately by granting them a heckler's veto.

On the other hand, maybe nothing can be apolitical anymore.What isn't political now? Which is another way of asking, what doesn't the government want to claim a stake in and thereby control to one degree or another.

Carson, from an unpromising beginning, has worked hard and succeeded in life. The lessons he has drawn from his struggles are, perhaps, not those his listeners would agree with. He has nonetheless led an exemplary life and, whether his views are right or wrong, they are worth considering. The protestors are not claiming that Carson's views are wrong. They are claiming that his views are shameful and unworthy of a respectable hearing,

In the first post you ever wrote about him, you stated that it was absurd and embarrassing that anyone on the right would even suggest that this man might run for president. I guess that was because Carson isn't a lawyer.

I was actually embarrassed for you, Althouse, after I read that.

Now you're apparently all for allowing a heckler's veto to bar a renowned surgeon from speaking at Johns Hopkins because of some very mild political statement he made, that would actually have been in complete agreement with President Obama just a couple of years ago.

There appears to be more going on here than some philosophical disagreement between the two of you. You seem irrationally negative toward this man.

Who's inclusive, who isn't? Both sides are both. SSM people aren't inclusuve. Graduation shouldn't have anything to do with position on marrigae. But, the self-centered, "it's all about me" SSM crowd thinks evverythingi is about them and SSM and wants the exclusiion of everyone contrary to their views.

I agree with you're assessment that it wasn't strictly defined "exclusion" if it was a decision of the part of Carlson. But I'm confused by you're assertion that graduation needs to be a "politically correct" occasion. (Although I've notice some posters seem to have conflated speaking politically correctly with speaking about politics in a graduation speech, which aren't necessarily the same thing.)

Voluntary withdrawal rather than speaking is essentially saying I apologize for my views. Which means I don't really believe what I say, I can always "evolve." It makes me suspicious of Carson's much vaunted integrity.

What would be truly nontraditional, other than dispensing with biological imperatives, and evolutionary fitness, is to afford equal protection and rights to all unions irrespective of sexual or platonic relationships; form and kind; and combinations and composition.

Perhaps decent men and women will finally move forward with the next progressive, incremental change. It's unlikely they will ever adhere to objective standards, but they could at least adhere to consistent standards. The uncertainty caused by selective standards is not good for people's health.

"We know (a) he's publicly non-leftist and (b) student activists believe that a sufficient reason to create a disruption. So we've rewarded those who will act inappropriately by granting them a heckler's veto."

That's what it looks like to me. I'm disappointed Althouse has thrown her lot in with them.

I say again, if Carson was going to talk about marriage, I think that's inappropriate. Do we have evidence he was?

When I graduated they threatened to withold our diplomas if we did not spend our last dollars to rent their stupid plastic hats and coats and show up to listen to interminable speeches by department heads and visiting pols describing us as the last best hope of loony lefty thought in Western Civilization,e tc., blah, blah, blah.

There appears to be more going on here than some philosophical disagreement between the two of you. You seem irrationally negative toward this man.

@ Pastafarian

You see, that Dr. Carson disagrees with Althouse's pet hobby horse (SSM) and many other favorite causes of the liberal/progressive left. THIS cannot be tolerated. He must be hounded from appearing where "decent" people are. Althouse seems to approve of this tactic as expressed in her final gleeful sentence.

Funny, Dr. Carson expresses the same opinion of same sex marriage that Obama stated up until last year. I don't recall ever hearing Obama being heckled or disinvited to speak because of his views. Bill Clinton implemented Don't Ask Don't Tell and remains a popular speaker.

Political correctness is a one-way form of censorship in that only conservatives are censored. The precious delicate little liberals would get a case of the vapors and surely swoon if they ever had to listen to an opinion contrary to their beliefs.

Yeh - supposed to be non-political (which does not equate to politically correct). Which was why my graduation speaker from law school was a former Dem Senator blathering on about Global Cooling for a half an hour on a hot cloudless early June day. You are stuck there listening to this politically correct drivel. At least when my kid graduated from HS, the entire class got matching white sunglasses to wear.

Political correctness is a one-way form of censorship in that only conservatives are censored. The precious delicate little liberals would get a case of the vapors and surely swoon if they ever had to listen to an opinion contrary to their beliefs.

I think that is important to remember. What those who insist on political correctness seem to forget is that it is our graduations too, and those of us who don't buy into the politically correct world view have to suffer through forced indoctrination one more time to officially get our diplomas.

"Yeah, Althouse, and I'll bet you were one of the lefties cheering back in the 60s when anti-war speakers "spoke truth to power" at graduation ceremonies. That was something of a fad for years."

When I graduated from college in 1973, nobody I knew went to graduation or even considered going. We didn't do that conventional bullshit.

When I graduated from high school, I myself was a graduation speaker, speaking twice, once because I competed to be a speaker and once because as valedictorian I was assigned the job of doing the invocation (i.e., violating the Establishment Clause). There, I myself spoke truth to power, and I got criticized for it in the local press. Some nuns in the audience particularly didn't like my approach to the invocation, in which I quoted Herman Hesse's "Demian."

I actually defended Dr.Carson in Althouse's first pst about him. I believe she suspected he was being used to push an agenda forward, despite his intelligence, which would explain her questioning him being the author of that particular speech at the prayer breakfast. If I'm wrong she will correct me.

If I'm correct, Althouse was right back then.

When Dr. Carson appeared on Fox and equated SSM with bestiality or NAMBLA, that was telling. As a brain surgeon, that was an incredibly dumb thing to say.

Not that I thought about him much but from what I read about Carson I thought he seemed like an 'ok' and certainly no one can deny his life's achievements.

HOWEVER to go from speaking his mind to apologizing for speaking his mind to now stepping down from being a commencement speaker because some people didn't like it when he spoke his mind shows me that it's amazing he can stand up because he's got no spine.

Where is the strength of his convictions?

WHEN are we going to get a conservative that after speaking truth to power and hearing the howling of hate from the Left/MSM responds with: 'Yeah I said it; what are YOU gonna do?; or 'FY' or 'Tell me where I'm wrong' or 'Bite me'?

With Breitbart gone I think there is no conservative left with the guts get in the face of the Left/MSM and tell them to jump in a lake.

Bruce Hayden said... What those who insist on political correctness seem to forget is that it is our graduations too, and those of us who don't buy into the politically correct world view have to suffer through forced indoctrination one more time to officially get our diplomas.

I don't think they forget this. The left thinks forcing people to listen to left wing political speeches they don't agree with is educational. Why do you think they try to incorporate political activity into the curriculum?

Nice literary jiu-jitsu, Ann. Anyone aware of Dr. Carson prior to the media feeding frenzy knows him to be an accomplished, intelligent, man of integrity. I presume that is why he was invited to speak in the first place.

It is a shame that ever-increasing hysteria of vapors keep manifesting itself in such puerile ways.

Well said!! LGBT peoples of color with special needs who can articulate the evils of carbon dioxide and the hegemony of white men in the suppression of indigenous peoples, the eradication of ancient forests in pursuit of ugly inequality-inducing profits.

Garage: It is a bit grating for accomplished people of color to note that an unaccomplished person of color has become president. You seem to have a burr under your very own saddle that should give you some clues about the nature of envy.

"Ironically, it was the lack of inclusiveness on the part of Carson that made Carson seem like an inappropriate graduation speaker."

That silliness right there is why this blog will never make it to the next level and remain an entertaining but niche oddity. At the end of the day the Prof can't NOT be a skeptical lefty studying the right as a curiosity.

"That silliness right there is why this blog will never make it to the next level and remain an entertaining but niche oddity. At the end of the day the Prof can't NOT be a skeptical lefty studying the right as a curiosity."

The amount of traffic this site gets is based on the comments section and whatever traffic Glenn Reynolds throws her for God knows what reason. That is all.

mccullough, you forgot about BJ Clinton, who initiated DOMA and DADT. He can speak anywhere and at anytime that he wishes, and the listeners will throw flowers and blow... wait, let's not go any farther.

Okay, to understand this you first must put yourself in the mind of a brain surgeon.

Okay there.

A black brain surgeon.

There.

Who is conservative.

That's asking a lot innit. There.

Whaoah, it's all brainiac in here. The task is to deliver a commencement speech. Easy enough. I'd like that. Ah, but my conservative views run afoul of present day p.c.,of which I've written. I know them. Let's see, protests are the antithesis of civil discussion. So discussion is not possible. The commencement will contain uncivil discussion if I am to attend. That situation excludes a proper commencement result.

While I'm in here, this brain surgeon's brain is unusual. Things are lined up and connected in stretches. It seems oddly more regular than usual chaos. Here's a bit, my gay brother and my gay father and my gay son and my gay daughter already have equal opportunities under the law that are rejected.

This is a weird brain to be in I must say, lookie here, this crossover defies the alignment, an analogy, so it fails right off, about guns. It's a right that is acknowledged and constitutionally protected, and here's the weird part, let's pretend given advantage for some reason that does not fit my personal values, like tax breaks for owning a gun because that shows you are responsible, and can handle them, or the ability to pass them to heirs without taxation at all, some sort of special break, that I don't care to engage in because I do not like guns. I don't like this doctors' brain, I don't like where this is going... but then sue for the advantages given to those people who DID go for the whole gun ownership thing, although that doesn't fit my desires at all. I want the tax advantage given to gun owners in this false analogy without owning a gun. I'd rather have a bow and arrows for weaponry, they're impractical, I know, but they fit me better. Jesus Christ this doctor is strange. Get me outta here.

Best he not go. And if you have any brain surgery, and it's by this guy, tell him to leave your amygdala alone.

But is A-Ok when I have to sit quietly and listen to far lefty Gary Trudeau at a college graduation? Fuck that professor- let these young grads get some thick skin- they will need it in the real world.

Inga:"When Dr. Carson appeared on Fox and equated SSM with bestiality or NAMBLA, that was telling. As a brain surgeon, that was an incredibly dumb thing to say"

He did not "equate" SSM as you suggest. Like one of the supreme court justices, one of the female supreme court justices, he raised the very logical question of "what next" and used those examples. Just like the female justice of the supreme court of the US. To reference is not to equate even if the reference is one you would prefer not to be an equation. See?

He didn't equate. What he did was to draw a circle around what he thinks marriage is and then listed what he thought it wasn't. He compiled an all too short list of (according to him) who doesn't get to redefine marriage. He should have added polygamists, polyamorists, etc. to that list.

I believe that nothing needs to be politically correct. Political correctness is an oppressive speech code and is contradictory to honest communication and eschange of ideas. It is a cancerous hypocrisy.

As a person who has actually personally attended a Johns Hopkins Medical School graduation, I feel the need to point out that the graduation speaker is traditionally an extraordinarily talented medical professional like Dr. Carson.

I'd also like to point out that hearing him speak on medical matters is worth the time and trouble, as he is indeed an extraordinarily talented medical professional.

I didn't know people got married at commencement. I guess it does avoid paying for snacks. So is it some kind of big Moonie thing, or do couples run up to the stage between speakers?

Academics are such a bunch of self-important sad-sacks. Everything's got to be about how they feel about some random, tangential issue. Never mind Carson's life, his expertise, his experiences. No, he holds personal views we don't like (not today, anyway) and we in our enlightenment cannot be expected to welcome such sickness among the pure.

How would it have been reported in the NYT, WaPo, Politico (but I repeat myself) if, say, representatives of some conservative institution decided to be ostentatiously offended by an eminent African-American? Or any African-American for that matter? Jeremiah Wright being quoted word-for-word on Fox sends lefties into a frenzy. Oooh, fetch the smelling salts! Unfair.

"Johns Hopkins excludes black speaker from graduation" is mild stuff compared to the blind raging 24/7 media tantrum if some lefty African American bowed out of a speaking engagement due to ideological controversy. And people like our professor wouldn't be interested in the wording of the headline and no one would have mentioned that the speaker was identified in headlines by his skin color rather than his accomplishments. Because racism. The focus in would have been on the horrible close-minded racists who excluded the black guy.

(Contra: wasn't there a white rev FOO had to be shit-canned from Easter due to some untoward public musings about gays? YES.)

It's illegal to make anyone feel uncomfortable on college campuses these days by advancing intellectual arguments that are hard to refute. The student's only response in such a case is to get emotional, upset, start crying. And then run to the EEOC/Diversity/Outreach office to complain that the voicing of such hostile views is denying them the right to an equal education.

And guess what? The student wins. You are not allow to say something so far out of the PC mainstream that someone gets upset.

This isn't how it used to be. When I went to Columbia many years ago I remember a popular professor telling us during freshman orientation that if we, the students, weren't upset, confused and angry after three months then the faculty wasn't doing its job.

Nowadays professors who upset student biases or preconceptions end up losing tenure or, at very least, their right to teach the class in question.

This is what he said, Inga: No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [the North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in beastiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.

He is not equating gays to NAMBLA, or people who engage in bestiality, he is simply saying they don't get to change the definition of marriage.

This reminds me of something I read here recently. Because Hitler was against smoking, being against smoking is wrong.

Same thing here. The guy is simply saying these things have something in common, they are outside of traditional marriage, and let's not normalize their views. And there is a hint here: what's next?

Weren't there some recent UK professors claiming pedophilia is simply another sexual orientation? Well, maybe it is, but so what. You exclude it from the mainline, and with good reason.

Dante: Weren't there some recent UK professors claiming pedophilia is simply another sexual orientation? Well, maybe it is, but so what. You exclude it from the mainline, and with good reason..

The left has not yet begun it's fight to define deviancy down. It won't be just pedophilia rights, and taxpayer funded sex change operations. Here in California some legislators want to strip the Boy Scouts of their tax exempt status because they won't allow gay scoutmasters.

Well, this is just great. The left in this county just wants to do to young boys in the Boy Scouts what gay priests did to young boys in the Catholic Church.

When the state blesses gay marriage it also blesses fudge packing. That's what gave us AIDS, a totally preventable disease which killed millions, cost billions and drained the funding for breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer and all those other diseases no one so far can prevent.

The Girl Scouts doesn't send out heterosexual males to supervise young girls on camping trips. And the Boy Scouts shouldn't send out homosexual males to supervise young boys in their pup tents either.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Always has, always will. Any other interpretation is just a corruption making language meaningless. Beyond that, you're entering the land of fairy tales: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."Says it all, no?